Two great light heavies, both with height, reach and good power. Spinks a much better boxer than given credit for. So, how does this one go? I really like Spinks, great fighter and funny individual. However, I think Foster gets to him in the 6 or 7th round. Foster (in his prime) would probably beat all of the great ones. Too much height, too much reach. And freakish power at that weight. Tough nut to beat...His only mistake was his foray into the heavies...
These guys are actually the same height, with Foster having a 3 inch reach advantage. Nowadays i tentatively pick Spinks here, he too is a monster at 175 and i find their power across both hands a wash. Spinks had incredible one punch power as well, with Foster being the more aggressive fighter on the whole. If push came to shove i might put Spinks chin a tad ahead, but they must be close to even. This is a first rate matchup, with Foster being better techinically but Spinks awkwardness being one of his big assets. The big hurdle for Spinks IMO is negating the Foster jab. He had a legendary overhand right and i think he'd be looking to time Bob's jab with this. Eddie Futch will be integral to Spinks chances, possibly the greatest strategist that ever lived. I can see Spinks possibly scoring a KD late in the fight and winning via tight decision. I see futcj coming thru as much as anyone in this. With such a talent as Spinks he can potentially negate almost anyone at 175. It would be fascinating to see where he angled vs Foster. This fight can easily go any of 4 ways tho, either could stop the other midway to late or Fosters jab might be the difference and he wins a decision. GREAT matchup.
I'd favor Foster. You can't fault a man who was never beaten by a man under the LH limit in a 65 fight, nearly 20 year career. Why are people so enamored by Spink's ten year 32 fight career? He's among the top five LH's of all time, no doubt, but Foster is very likely in there alongside him as well.
I'd favor Spinks. He really knew no way to lose and was more adaptable. I think his awkward style would frustrate Foster. OR Spinks could box Foster ala Qawi and win a boring affair.
For the same reasons they are enamored with SRL's 40 fight career. Tell me what Light Heavyweights Bob beat that are as good or better than EMM and Qawi? There's two fantastic wins right there, against two VERY different styles. Bob has more fights, but regardless of some fantastic efforts he's not quite as proven vs the class Spinks is IMO. There's no doubt Foster is there beside him, no-one has said other. The thread was 1-1 and i made it clear in my post Foster could easily win. Two superb fighters and IMO two of the very hardest hitters to ever grace the division. I would not be surprised if they were the top two, but we will never know.
On the flip side of not fighting opponents as consistently good as Qawi he fought twice as many fighters period. So it's a matter of quality of sheer quantity. Foster's absolute demolition of Dick Tiger is seemingly all but forgotten when the question of "who" he beat is asked. Tiger was a absolute tank of a middleweight, one of the strongest if not THE strongest of all time. The move up to LH certainly didn't hamper him in any major way, and he was almost exactly a year removed from beating Jose Torres, and a year and two days after being destroyed by Foster he beat Nino Benvenuti convincingly! Yet Foster knocks out one of the most durable middleweights of all time with a single punch, and said fight is sandwhiched between two of his best wins but he gets little to no credit for it. Tiger is at least as accomplished as Qawi or Muhammed.
No-one is saying Foster is shyte because he hasn't fought an array of greats. Fighters like he and Larry Holmes get plenty of credit due to longevity and title reign. Fact is tho there are others who have beaten higher level opposition. It's up to individual interpretation how we factor this in. It's not forgotten at all, it's his best or second best ever win so how could it be. No-one would argue he's not. Middleweight isn't light heavyweight. Tiger was 39 years old and he only ever fought 4 more times post Foster. By the same token Torres only fought 2 more times after the Tiger rematch. Neither were peak, well certainly not Tiger. The fight after Foster beat him Tiger had all sorts of problems with DePaula, who was no great shakes. Nino had some inconsistent results both sides of the Tiger fight, to say the least. I don't know where this comes from TBH, he gets plenty of credit in here for that win, but we also recognise Tigers age and career stage, as well as his very short tenure at 175. Not at 175 he ain't. Overall P4P Tiger's obviously a great.
Agreed to differing extents on most of what you're saying. I just think more highly then most of Foster. Tiger routinely weighed in over the 160 limit for years before he fought Foster. He was 163 when he completely battered Carter, all of 5 pounds less then he would weigh against the 173 1/2 pound Foster years later.
You'll be pleased to know i do too, i have no problem with anyone picking him over ANY 175 in history - period. You'll never find me arguing hard against. Again, my comments above favour Spinks narrowly by the barest of margins. I would not be surprised one single bit if Foster turned the trick here. The man was a monster. And poor Carter weighed 159. Just two fights earlier Carter had lost to Harry Scott, despite KD'ing him in the opening stanza. Tiger's a GREAT middleweight, and a fine light heavyweight but it's 160 where i REALLY rate him in the context of things. P4P too of course.
